Carson Will Hold Parcells' Feet To The Fire

[ScipioCowboy]

And, conversely, you won't remedy racial discrimination without established efforts to do so. AA policies are one remedy.

Racial discrimination is only truly remedied if hearts and minds are changed. All the legislation in the world won't undo discriminatory practices unless people are willing to accept it. There's always loopholes. This was the great lesson of Reconstruction.

AA policies can be a tool of remediation as long as they don't perpetuate racial discrimination.

In a pure sense, of course. But that's the problem with your argument. It presumes racial discrimination merely as a "wrong" without understanding a broader context.

If, for example, traditionally black schools were trying to recruit more whites (which has been the case) and admit whites even while it "discriminates" against other blacks, is that wrong?

If a company believes it needs to hire a manager who better understands its African American or Hispanic employees, is that wrong?

It depends on the method by which schools and companies work to acheive greater diversity.

You erroneously presuppose that all AA policies are equal. They aren't.

One can work to acheive racial equality without implementing inherently discrimatory practices. For instance, a school could work towards greater diversity by targeting inner city areas as part of recruiting efforts. It's not perpetuating racism in its admission policies. It's simply trying to include more kinds of people.

Now, assume a school mandates that it must admit a certain number of whites or blacks, or that one race can be admitted with lower test score than other races. In these instances, the school is perpetuating discrimination.

Of course not. It's merely understanding the issue from a context.

And therein lies the problem with our disagreement. You want to see racial discrimination as if everything were equal, and I see it as an issue to be evaluated within a context.

There's context. Then there's intellectual honesty and consistency of action.

You can't, in good conscience, decry discrimination when it hinders people of your race, and then justify it when it benefits people of your race.

That's called hypocrisy.

I could just as easily as excuse slavery by extolling its benefits to the country as a whole.

Who said anything about numbers?

I was talking specifically about racial quotas.

Correct. And the Rooney Rule has been instituted by the NFL because it sees a need for the NFL to police the NFL and at least make efforts towards racial inclusion in the interviewing process.

And we're discussing the effectiveness of the Rooney Rule.

Personally, I'm ambivalent towards the Rooney Rule. I'm responding to your claims that "whites in America perpetuated the system of racial discrimination" and must now "deal with the consequences."

Really?

So when the Arkansas eight try to integrate public schools whites just went along with it?

When blacks started to boycott the Montgomery bus system, whites were okay with that?

Not all whites. But the majority of Americans were ready for Civil Rights, ready for social change in the treatment of other races - thanks in large part to the efforts of Martin Luther King.

Some decided they didn't like it and pulled out of public schools and refuse to ride the bus and some decided to accept the changes in society because they were fair.

Some didn't accept it. But most Americans did. Certainly, there were highly organized pockets of resistence to racial equality in American.

However, in a democratic republic, the government cannot pass such sweeping, reform-oriented legislation as Civil Rights without the support of a majority of Americans. Just can't happen. History proves as much. Consider post-Civil War Reconstruction: Although most of America was ready to end slavery, it wasn't ready for racial equality. For this reason, Reconstruction was a huge failure.

 

[tyke1doe]

Racial discrimination is only truly remedied if hearts and minds are changed. All the legislation in the world won't undo discriminatory practices unless people are willing to accept it. There's always loopholes. This was the great lesson of Reconstruction.

All the legislation in the world won't stop murder, theft, rape, embezzlement, etc.

But legislation WILL stop much crime as well as send a message to society what is and isn't acceptable behavior. Legislation is there to inform and make people conform.

Again, you're arguing extremes and theoreticals. The world doesn't operate solely on extremes or theoreticals.

As for Reconstruction, it didn't work because racism was entrenched in the system and the advantage given to whites was so significant that blacks had to play catch-up. WIthout legal remedies, when would that ever have occurred?

AA policies can be a tool of remediation as long as they don't perpetuate racial discrimination.

So you're saying AA policies can be a tool of remediation? Very good.

It depends on the method by which schools and companies work to acheive greater diversity.

You erroneously presuppose that all AA policies are equal. They aren't.

When did I say all AA polices are equal?

One can work to acheive racial equality without implementing inherently discrimatory practices. For instance, a school could work towards greater diversity by targeting inner city areas as part of recruiting efforts. It's not perpetuating racism in its admission policies. It's simply trying to include more kinds of people.

First, let's make a distinction between public colleges and public schools (K-12) because the latter can't recruit in other areas outside their specific education zone.

Second, I appreciate your example, but you fail to take certain factors into consideration. Most inner city areas are going to include students who are not as educationally prepared as students in suburban areas because of economics and environmental factors, among others. So let's asy you have a school that works for greater diversity. It still has academic standards. And if those students from inner city areas don't meet those qualifications or may meet the qualifications but their scores are below that of a student in a suburban area, you still have the same situation, i.e., a white student complaining that he couldn't get in a college because of its "unwritten" AA policy.

That's why policies need to be adopted, not only to chart a course for an organization but to defend the practices of an organization.

Now, assume a school mandates that it must admit a certain number of whites or blacks, or that one race can be admitted with lower test score than other races. In these instances, the school is perpetuating discrimination.

You keep talking about "certain numbers." You're talking about quotas. Affirmative Action and quotas are two different animals, even if they can overlap.

Second, "lower test scores" is subjective in an of itself because the university experience is not just about "test scores." The question a university must answer is this: what is better for the university, kids of the same race who have "better" test scores or kids of different races with "lower' test scores but who add to the university's mission of education and preparing students to face a more diverse world?

There's context. Then there's intellectual honesty and consistency of action.

And I would say intellectual honesty, as well as moral honesty, is making sure people remedy past wrongs. I would say that amounts to consistency of action also.

You can't, in good conscience, decry discrimination when it hinders people of your race, and then justify it when it benefits people of your race.

That's called hypocrisy.

It depends on the situation.

If it is to remedy injustices then it isn't hypocrisy. It's restitution.
But it's hypocrisy to you because your context looks at the situation as if both parties start from the vantage point of equal opportunity.

That's why it's hard for you to understand.

I could just as easily as excuse slavery by extolling its benefits to the country as a whole.

I'm sure you could.

I was talking specifically about racial quotas.

As I said above, AA and racial quotas are two different animals.

And we're discussing the effectiveness of the Rooney Rule.

Well, the Rooney Rule has an immediate effectiveness in that it calls on a team to interview a black candidate. In that respect, it has been effective. We'll see about the long-range effectiveness of the rule. But blacks just want the opportunity to get into the door and make an impression. That's what the Rooney Rule is designed to do.

Personally, I'm ambivalent towards the Rooney Rule. I'm responding to your claims that "whites in America perpetuated the system of racial discrimination" and must now "deal with the consequences."

Well, they did. And one of the consequences is dealing with how blacks view this situation and how many whites are not only sympathetic with their concerns but act with respect to remedies such as the Rooney Rule.

Not all whites. But the majority of Americans were ready for Civil Rights, ready for social change in the treatment of other races - thanks in large part to the efforts of Martin Luther King. Some didn't accept it. But most Americans did. Certainly, there were highly organized pockets of resistence to racial equality in American.

But that acceptance wouldn't have mattered if not supported by legislation and the military power of the United States. Remember, National Guards had to escort the Arkansas eight into public schools.

However, in a democratic republic, the government cannot pass such sweeping, reform-oriented legislation as Civil Rights without the support of a majority of Americans. Just can't happen. History proves as much. Consider post-Civil War Reconstruction: Although most of America was ready to end slavery, it wasn't ready for racial equality. For this reason, Reconstruction was a huge failure.

Correction, the SOUTH wasn't ready for Reconstruction much as it wasn't ready for the Voting Rights Act. But legislation and the threat of law enforcement and judicial punishment helps people get in line.

It's both, but you cannot divorce legislation.

Second, a lot of things are done without the support of most Americans. Remember, Bush in 2000 wasn't even elected by a majority of the voters. He simply won the Electoral College and had a majority on the Supreme Court.

In summary: we can't wait just for people to change (and it's interesting that you mention Martin Luther King Jr. because he too addressed the issue about "Why We Can't Wait" when he penned his famous letters from the Birmingham Jail). We often have to force people to change and we do that, in this system, via legislation. Now, we expect people to have a sense of common decency and respect the rule of law and that's why for the most part we don't break out into violent bloody coups. But major changes with respect to race in America has almost always been prompted by legislation from voting rights legislation to legislation prohibiting banks from red-lining.

I wish that weren't the case, but it is.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

All the legislation in the world won't stop murder, theft, rape, embezzlement, etc.

But legislation WILL stop much crime as well as send a message to society what is and isn't acceptable behavior. Legislation is there to inform and make people conform.

Again, you're arguing extremes and theoreticals. The world doesn't operate solely on extremes or theoreticals.

Actually, you're the one dealing solely in theory, not I.

Legislation does NOT stop crime in practice. It never has. Otherwise, countries could reduce their crime rates simply by passing more laws and giving their law enforcement officials more leeway in enforcing those laws.

This simply isn't the case.

Communist Russia, for instance, gave its law enforcement agencies virtually unchecked power yet still had a murder rate 4 times higher than the United States. The majority of Americans don't commit murder because they personally believe murder is wrong and don't want to be murdered themselves.

Furthermore, it's impossible to compare violents crime laws and anti-discrimination laws. They're handled and enforced in completely different ways. Police can't simply rush in at the first sign of discriminatory hiring practices, and stop the corporation from discriminating at gun point. Determining whether or not discrimination has occured is far more subjective than determining whether or not a murder has occured. There's an arduous and lengthy process.

Also, you have no right to commit violent crime, but you do have a right to free enterprise and some freedom to conduct your business as you see fit. Anti-discrimination laws must account for constitutional freedoms in a way that violent crime laws do not.

These two kinds of laws simply aren't comparable.

As for Reconstruction, it didn't work because racism was entrenched in the system and the advantage given to whites was so significant that blacks had to play catch-up. WIthout legal remedies, when would that ever have occurred?

No. Reconstruction didn't work because a majority of Americans were neither ready for racial equality nor willing to start another war.

One of Reconstruction's goals was preventing and eliminating many of the same racial barriers at which Civil Rights was aimed. However, it met much resistence in the embittered South, and the vast majority of Northerners simply didn't care to see Reconstruction through. Racial equality was of little concern to them, and they were ready to move on.

After Reconstruction, the situation of African-Americans grew steadily worse.

So you're saying AA policies can be a tool of remediation? Very good.

Certainly...as long as they don't promote racial discrimination.

When did I say all AA polices are equal?

You assume the ends justify the means. They don't.

Second, I appreciate your example, but you fail to take certain factors into consideration. Most inner city areas are going to include students who are not as educationally prepared as students in suburban areas because of economics and environmental factors, among others. So let's asy you have a school that works for greater diversity. It still has academic standards. And if those students from inner city areas don't meet those qualifications or may meet the qualifications but their scores are below that of a student in a suburban area, you still have the same situation, i.e., a white student complaining that he couldn't get in a college because of its "unwritten" AA policy.

That's why policies need to be adopted, not only to chart a course for an organization but to defend the practices of an organization.

Educational preparation (as you put it) cannot be improved or rectified by affirmative action. If textbooks are out of date, the state and school should cooperate and address the school's funding situation. Lowering the test score qualifications isn't a solution and will only facilitate future poor educational preparation.

Also, college students are a far more diverse lot than simply white, affluent suburbanites.

Guess who historically performs the best on standardized testing?

Asians.

Do you think that all asians hail from affluent Suburbs? Hardly. Many live in inner cities. Others migrate from countries where living condition aren't substantially better than America's inner cities. However, they succeed because they have the drive and ambition to do so. And in truth, learning and performing well in school is almost entirely about personal drive and motivating oneself.

Granted, most Asians come from a culture that encourages and facilitates academic success, but they weren't given this culture by Affirmative Action.

If you come from a culture that does not encourage academic sucess or promote the importance of education, only you can change it. No amount of affirmative action or government intervention can do so for you.

And I would say intellectual honesty, as well as moral honesty, is making sure people remedy past wrongs. I would say that amounts to consistency of action also.

It depends on the situation.

If it is to remedy injustices then it isn't hypocrisy. It's restitution.
But it's hypocrisy to you because your context looks at the situation as if both parties start from the vantage point of equal opportunity.

That's why it's hard for you to understand.

Really?

Let's examine your supposition.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
hy·poc·ri·sy1.a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. 2.a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude. 3.an act or instance of hypocrisy.


No where does the above definition state that hypocrisy isn't hypocrisy as long as someone benefits or someone's idea of justice is served. I suppose it's "hard for me to understand" because you have your own personal defintion of hypocrisy.

Furthermore, injustices aren't remedied by perpetuating further injustices. We can help a disadvantaged "party" (as you put it) by educating them, providing them resources, and encouraging them to adjust their culture to one that embraces education.

We should not, however, discriminate against another party.

As I said above, AA and racial quotas are two different animals.

And, as you've already conceded, they overlap.

But that acceptance wouldn't have mattered if not supported by legislation and the military power of the United States. Remember, National Guards had to escort the Arkansas eight into public schools.

Correction, the SOUTH wasn't ready for Reconstruction much as it wasn't ready for the Voting Rights Act. But legislation and the threat of law enforcement and judicial punishment helps people get in line.

It's both, but you cannot divorce legislation.

As I've already established, the North wasn't ready for Reconstruction or racial equality. Not as they were ready for the abolition of slavery.

"Legislation, the threat of law enforcement, and judicial punishment" are only effective in a democratic republic when a majority supports the legislation. If a majority does not support it, the most likely consequence is major civil rebellion across the United States.

Now, there were certainly pockets of civil rebellion and unrest, but it wasn't severe enough to disrupt the country's normal functioning.

Do you think that the government didn't have "legislation, the threat of law enforcement, and judicial punishment" during Reconstruction?

Of course they did.

As I said before, Civil Rights worked only because most Americans were ready to embrace racial equality. Reconstruction didn't work because most Americans weren't ready to embrace racially equality, and the government can't force such an issue with the support of its people.

Second, a lot of things are done without the support of most Americans. Remember, Bush in 2000 wasn't even elected by a majority of the voters. He simply won the Electoral College and had a majority on the Supreme Court.

Actually, you're making my case.

The majority of Americans accepted George W. Bush as President because they believed in the Constitution and accepted its laws and precepts, including the Electoral College.

As Al Gore said in his concession speech, we're a nation guided by laws. And Americans believed in the validity of those laws.

In summary: we can't wait just for people to change (and it's interesting that you mention Martin Luther King Jr. because he too addressed the issue about "Why We Can't Wait" when he penned his famous letters from the Birmingham Jail).

And Martin Luther King didn't simply try to pass laws. He brought his case to all Americans, and with their support, he was able to make sweeping changes. Without the support of a majority of Americans, it wouldn't have been possible.

 

[Rack]

:laugh2:

You question my reading comprehension, but it's you who have trouble with the English language, my friend.

Here is what you wrote:



Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is YOU who made the blanket statement and not I.

And I retorted with legal actions because it destroys your argument. Often times, throughout American history, whites had to be FORCED to treat people equally. There were those who didn't want blacks to vote. So they had to be FORCED to accommodate blacks at the polls, hence the Voting Rights Act.

There were those who didn't want blacks to be free but to remain slaves, hence the Emancipation Proclamation.

There were those who didn't want blacks to be able to sit where they wanted to on the bus, hence legislation that made segregation in public accommodations illegal.

There were those who didn't want blacks to attend schools with whites, hence, Brown vs. Board of Education.

But you know you're arguing a losing point, which is why you sought to clarify and narrow the discussion. Well, I'm glad you're doing so because you've just admitted - albeit reluctantly - that your general statement was nonsense.

I won't respond to the other idiocy you're spouting about the Miss White America Pageant because, like this discussion, you fail to understand such issues from the context of history.

Besides, I wouldn't want to "jerk" your chain further.

1. I didn't make any blanket statements, you did. That much is obvious.

2. You didn't bring up any legal actions that destroyed my "Argument". I said no one SHOULD be FORCED to hire a certain race, color, nationality. Bringing up legal actions does "Crush" anything cuz this is my opinion. You can flap your gums all you want about legalities, it doesn't affect my opinion.

3. The Voting Rights act didn't force anyone to do anything. It ALLOWED blacks the right to vote.

4. Bringing up the emancipation proclamation is irrelevant. It freed the slaves, but that would have been the right thing to do regardless of skin color, race, or nationality. That's a matter of human rights, not blacks right IMO.

5. If going by your own thought process, blacks should be FORCED to abolish the United Negro College Fund, the Black Miss America Pagent, Black Educational Institutions, etc...

6. I never sought to narrow the discussion. The discussion was originally about the NFL being forced to interview minorities. YOU are the one that tried to broaden the discussion.

7. Of course you didn't respond to the other parts of my post cuz you know it would crush YOUR argument, Chico.

 

[Rack]

And just to clarify, I'm not against any law that forces businesses to treat everyone as EQUALS, as far as race, color, and/or nationality.

I am against a law that forces businesses to hire a certain amount of "minorities" just to meet a quota. Hire based on Merit and merit alone. I don't care if a company is ran by 99% blacks, as long as they're the best people for the job. By the same token, if a company has 99% white employees but they were the best candidates for the job, so be it.


But, as I mentioned before, if a company has been found guilty of discrimination in the hiring process (aka not hiring soley based on merit) then heavy punishment should be administered.

The government should set up a board or something that investigates businesses - some randomly, some not randomly - in their hiring practices. All interviews should be recorded on video and saved for investigation purposes. Instead of forcing businesses to hire minorities to fill a quota, force them to hire based on MERIT. Any business found guilty should suffer heavy HEAVY punishment if they are found to have discriminated in the hiring process (and that means if they discriminated against ANYONE, including whites).

 

[Nors]

It's not forcing a team to hire a minority.

It's about giving the opportunity to sit for the position.

 

[tyke1doe]

1. I didn't make any blanket statements, you did. That much is obvious.

Here are your words:

No doubt everyone should be treated equally.


But no one should be forced to treat everyone equally.

2. You didn't bring up any legal actions that destroyed my "Argument". I said no one SHOULD be FORCED to hire a certain race, color, nationality. Bringing up legal actions does "Crush" anything cuz this is my opinion. You can flap your gums all you want about legalities, it doesn't affect my opinion.

Actually, I'm exercising my fingers, not flapping my gums.

Also, again, read your response:

No doubt everyone should be treated equally.


But no one should be forced to treat everyone equally.

3. The Voting Rights act didn't force anyone to do anything. It ALLOWED blacks the right to vote.

Just as the Rooney Rule allows blacks to be a part of the interview process. I guess it's all how you look at it.

4. Bringing up the emancipation proclamation is irrelevant. It freed the slaves, but that would have been the right thing to do regardless of skin color, race, or nationality. That's a matter of human rights, not blacks right IMO.

So. It still forced white slaveowners to abandon the practice of slavery, something they did not want to do.
And so what if it's a human rights issue? It's a moral issue and morality involves restitution and remedies for injustices. Unless you're going to argue that restitution is wrong because it isn't a human rights issue.

5. If going by your own thought process, blacks should be FORCED to abolish the United Negro College Fund, the Black Miss America Pagent, Black Educational Institutions, etc...

Ah, the apple and orange comparisons. We're talking about legislation and policy not what groups name themselves. Groups can name themselves whatever they want.

Moreover, those organizations exist because ...

1.) They were developed during a time of racial discrimination (here's the historical context)
2.) They weren't developed to champion racial superiority or perpetuate discrimination (unlike what occurred when whites named groups after their race) but to provide blacks opportunities they wouldn't otherwise get and
3.) They don't exclude whites. Even the Black Miss America Pageant's intent is not to discriminate against whites but to provide opportunities for black women to attend college. White women have many more avenues to do that than black women - historically.

6. I never sought to narrow the discussion. The discussion was originally about the NFL being forced to interview minorities. YOU are the one that tried to broaden the discussion.

Again, your words:

No doubt everyone should be treated equally.


But no one should be forced to treat everyone equally.

7. Of course you didn't respond to the other parts of my post cuz you know it would crush YOUR argument, Chico.

Pulease. Your observation was amateur at best. The "Well what about the Miss Black American Pageant or NAACP" is an argument offered by the historically ill-informed. There are reasons why those groups exist, and if you don't understand why, then maybe you're not as well versed in history as you think you are.

That, I can't help you with. It requires more reading and a bit more understanding of others.

 

[Rack]

No matter how many times you quote it, it still won't make it a blanket statement.